jimit

A bit of an oddity as for many years they were considered to be long barrows, and still are by Hampshire Treasures.
The confusion arose because the most prominent group consists of two bowl barrows and a twin bowl barrow surrounded by a common ditch, all on a NE/SW alignment about 150M long.
There is another twin bowl barrow and a rare saucer barrow near by and a further two bowl barrows to the W.
Conjoint barrows surrounded by a single ditch are comparatively rare.

Could one speculate that these marked the burial of several family/tribe/clan members who died at the same time?

(The “Earthwork” shown to the N is an IA univallate Hill Fort)

Access
Gentle gradients on good tracks from car park but drops steeply near barrows.
Area fenced off but access possible at bottom of field through a “Hampshire Gate”.
Area popular with walkers as the whole of Hampshire and the IOW can be seen from the track, especially at the Monument.

EXTRACT FROM ENGLISH HERITAGE’S RECORD OF SCHEDULED MONUMENTS
MONUMENT: Dumpdon Camp
The monument includes Dumpdon Camp, a prehistoric hillfort located on a
detached hill, 260m high, at the southern end of a steep-sided ridge of Upper
Greensand between the River Otter and the Luppitt Brook. The flat topped and
triangular shaped hillfort of 2.6ha was defended by two substantial ramparts
and ditches on the northern side, controlling the only easy line of approach,
and by single ramparts on the east and west sides. A single inturned entrance
on the north east side provided the only known point of entry.
The layout of the defences largely reflects the configuration of the hilltop
which is flattest and widest towards its northern end, narrowing down to a
steep sided point at its southern end. The northern approach required the
strongest artificial protection and here the defences were bivallate with a
berm 30m wide separating two ramparts and their accompanying ditches. The
inner rampart is on average 1.3m in height on the interior with an average
width of 4.5m. It has a depth on the outer slope of 8.3m and is fronted by a
ditch which is mostly filled and waterlogged but which has an average width of
4.7m. The outer rampart is on average 1.2m in height and 3.1m in width. It is
fronted by a well defined ditch which has an average width of 3.5m and in
places is up to 1.35m deep. The remaining two sides of the monument were
defended along part of their length by a single rampart and a single ditch of
much smaller dimensions than those on the northern side and with a small
counterscarp bank on the outer side of the ditch. Controlled excavations have
demonstrated that the base of the eastern rampart was constructed of sizeable
chert blocks forming a wall 2.15m wide and 0.4m high; it was noted in the same
excavation report that the unexcavated western rampart becomes less distinct
and breaks up into a series of small dumps. It has been suggested by the
excavator, Professor Todd, that the defences were never completed and that
only the rampart base was constructed along part of the western and eastern
sides before work ceased. The fading out of the defensive ditch at about the
same place as the rampart base on both sides of the monument would support
this view. The hillfort was however provided with a single 20m long inturned
entrance close to the north east angle; this comprised a 7m wide causeway
flanked by low banks between the ditch ends. The thickened end of the southern
rampart may have been intended as a fighting platform covering the approach in
front of the gate. A gap in the northern defences is considered to be modern.
The interior of the hillfort is featureless and limited excavations in the
interior have revealed no signs of occupation. The suggestion is that Dumpdon
hillfort was neither finished nor fully occupied.

Managed to find this stone at last having looked in the wrong place before. My thanks to Prof. Caroline Tisdall of the Conholt Park Estate for pointing me in the right direction.

What a very odd stone. The markings are shallower than I expected but quite obvious. The most prominent features are the 5 or more grooves which describe a very regular arc. Tracing it out, my fingers fitted perfectly. From the top of the arc the grooves split off at an angle and are straight but less well defined. There are other ill-defined marks but I didn’t want to remove the moss which was obscuring them. The “frame” at top of the stone is also a curious feature but has a “natural” feel to it.

What is one to make of this stone?

The geologists who looked at it in the 1920s rather sniffily dismissed the marks as natural but I’m not so sure. I’ve seen a fair number of sarsens but this is the first time that I’ve come across anything that looked like this.

When I was there (21.11.04) the light was not the best for seeing the marks as there was thick fog. It needs a good photographer with lights to bring out the details.

This is the most northerly of the series of Iron Age forts in this area, Danebury, Norsebury, Woolbury, that line the River Test.
The original slight univallate fort was later strengthened and given another entrance.
The banks and the ditch are in a fine state of preservation although fairly heavily wooded, the centre is grazed and private.
The site was used well into the Roman period and in the Battle of Andover in 1016 (King Canute v Edmond Ironside) it was used as Canute’s camp.

Access Parking available close to S. entrance, level, short walk to kissing gate. Parts of level inner walk have many tree roots and the ditch bottom can be rutted and wet.

It’s a pity that the local villagers trashed this barrow in 1750 when they completely removed the middle in a fruitless(?) search for grave goods. It sits on a fine spur overlooking the Vale of Pewsey and is surrounded by a multitude of linear banks and ditches and early field systems. From the link below it is not clear when the 10ft high Sarsens at the entrance were removed, they would have been a grand sight.

Access Close to road and field gate, rough pasture.

I have provisionally posted this as a carved stone although the last time it was really looked at, in the 1920s, the general concensus was that the marks were natural. However I have not seen marks in Sarsen that look quite like these. People with more experience of rock art than I may have other opinions.
If the marks are truly man-made they are rare in this part of the country.
The picture quality is explained in the caption.

Access
Park on verge at T junction, cross road to field gate and the stone is in the hollow to your right about 50M away. Tussocky grass.

(The hollow in which it lies is one of the quarry pits used by the Romans to construct the Chute Causeway, a diversion on the Winchester-Cirencester road to avoid the steep valley to the North)

A rare and curious example of a preserved excavation of a Mesolithic dwelling.
The site was discovered in the late 1940s by Sir E. Beddington Behrens who noticed the existence of flint flakes, tools and weapons dating to the Mesolithic Era. It was excavated and preserved by Dr. Louis and Mary Leakey of Olduvai Gorge fame in Dec. 1950. Hearths and post-holes found suggest that it was a temporary hunting camp.

A small museum, which covers the site has more information and a selection of artifacts.

Access
The site is on private land and the key to the Museum is held at Manor Farm. Local schools occasionally visit in pre-booked parties but for individual trips it is better to contact the landowner on 01306 730760.
The site is either accessible from Manor Farm, across fields, or from a field gate near the bottom of the hill.

Having at last re-visited this site (see notes below) I am very confused. Its position in the park is very beautiful and tranquil, only the occasional car passing. The circle itself is mainly composed of the generic Sarsens but a curious extension to the N is made from conglomerate including the tallest stone at the termination.
There is a small double concentric prone circle somewhat N of centre of the main circle. Some of the stones are upright, some leaning and some prone. In the valley, apart from some used as road markers, there are several erect stones seemingly randomly placed.
How much of it is authentic? My own thoughts are that the circle itself “feels” right but the odd N extension looks as though an antiquarian has though to make a faux passage grave and while he was at it put a ruined cist in the circle for good measure!
The etymology for “Stonor” is, not surprisingly, “stone hill”.
This pretty circle needs more people to visit it, someone with more experience than me would be a start!